The testimony of the NT writers

[Kenny]

If there is truth in any of the claims of any side and there is a consensus about the premises, there should be a path to verify it and good faith interlocutors should be able to reach a conclusion.
I see at least three obstacles here.

1. A general disagreement whether the universe is orderly or magical.
2. A dedication that prevents critical thinking, at least on one side.
3. The (seemingly) inability to drop points that are currently not solvable.

Let's start with the last. Are you willing to drop those points that are disputed even within the community of dedicated magical thinkers?

I think we have to come to the place where we also ask the question "When does reality become reality?"

When people of critical thinking and high intelligence still come to the conclusion that it is historical, why should one accept those critical thinkers and high intelligence that it is not historical as the gospel of truth?

No. The reality is that there will always be two sides to this coin.

Apparently there is a path to verify it and good faith interlocutors have reached a conclusion whereas the other side of the coin don't agree.

Just because something is disputed does not equate to "dropping it". IMV Scientists are always "disputing"

 

[Kenny]

Which is accepted as a greek fantasy

But that wasn't the issue that you stated. Who wrote the Iliad. People believe that blind Homer wrote it.

you said "So can you point to secular writing of the period that is accepted (on faith) by at least 30% of the world's population?"

More than 30% of the people accept (on faith) that Homer wrote it.

 

[Colt]

Talking about the apostles someone said:
... and I answered:


If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, would its authenticity be more widely accepted? I think it would.

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

Revelation always occurs in the arena of religious faith. It is not the product of either philosophers or historians. Its records are that of imperfect holy men. There isn’t even a chain of possession of those records that can be substantiated.

 

[Left Coast]

Nice.

But that is why he is a contemporary. And then, after he got private revelations from Jesus, he check to see if he just had a bad pizza night with those who did know and found out it was real, true and perfect revelation.

He found out what was a real true and perfect revelation? He reports no details of what the other apostles confirmed other than that they agreed with his gospel that Gentiles shouldn't have to become Jewish to be Christians. We don't have their side of the story. His actual report of their encounter says: "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me." Those aren't the words of someone making sure they weren't "having a bad pizza night."

Wow, that was quite a jump. Would you also like it pre-recorded on a DVD?

But the fact they quote scripture and speak of Jesus validating what was written.

Quoting Scripture? People who have seen things with their own eyes don't need to quote Scripture. Quoting Scripture suggests they got their information from Scripture, which isn't any more rational than when you do it.

Secondly, "speaking of Jesus" tells us nothing about whether the New Testament is reliable. What did they say about Jesus? What details do they validate? How so?

These are the kind of questions you have to ask when you're actually serious about historical inquiry, Kenny. I know that you just believe the Bible on faith and rationalize in details later, but that isn't how historians approach things.

So, we see that you just don't want to believe without substantive evidence...

You were so close! You're right that I don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. What's wrong with that?

 

[Left Coast]

Does any of this really have a need to be answered? Should I even consider foolish questions or statements?

Running out of overused statements and irrelevant positions?

Wait a minute, so your religion doesn't require you to believe that the Bible is infallible? If you stood up before your congregation and said that...they'd have no issue? You don't think it's relevant to this discussion that you believe the Bible is infallibly true in every detail as a matter of dogma?

 

[Eli G]

New Testament writings do not just reveal actual events that occurred and were recounted by eyewitnesses in the first place. It also tells us about the community that grew out of those testimonials. The NT reveals to us that this new community arose within a religious context that had already existed for centuries: the Jewish context. It was nothing new, but a continuation of a system backed by historical realities.

In addition, there were rules regarding the way in which those truths had to be transmitted to the following generations. No one could invent anything that had not been received from the first eyewitnesses. This system of knowledge and historical information endorsed by the first witnesses and the ancient Jewish context itself, was transmitted from generation to generation to this day, without stopping. It was only recently that began to be questioned...Thanks God we have the contemporary testimonies that were written to document it all at the right time.

To compensate for the lack of confidence in these testimonies, some individuals have been called upon to concoct out of thin air the story of a Jesus who would be and do the things that they imagine he would do and say, because that is how they want to consider it acceptable from their own point of view... and they want to impose this Jesus instead. Modern thoughts do not change realities.

 

[Left Coast]

In addition, there were rules regarding the way in which those truths had to be transmitted to the following generations. No one could invent anything that had not been received from the first eyewitnesses. This system of knowledge and historical information endorsed by the first witnesses and the ancient Jewish context itself, was transmitted from generation to generation to this day, without stopping. It was only recently that began to be questioned...Thanks God we have the contemporary testimonies that were written to document it all at the right time.

And yet at the time, even per Christian accounts, most Jews did not accept Christian claims about this Jesus. So either a) the vast majority of adherents to this airtight system of only passing on what's been explicitly seen by eyewitnesses was violated en masse by the very people who developed it, b) this system isn't as infallible as you think, or c) these original "eyewitnesses" were people like Paul who had unverifiable visions of things that were then taken as gospel.

Which do you think it is?

 

[Eli G]

The Jews do not deny the miracles of Jesus.

Paul didn't add anything new. He confirmed and explained the facts that had already been established

 

[Kenny]

He found out what was a real true and perfect revelation? He reports no details of what the other apostles confirmed other than that they agreed with his gospel that Gentiles shouldn't have to become Jewish to be Christians. We don't have their side of the story. His actual report of their encounter says: "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me." Those aren't the words of someone making sure they weren't "having a bad pizza night."

???

And just what do you think they talked about? The year 2023 and the need to convince Left Coast?

1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

I could go on but your position is absurd, to say the least.

Quoting Scripture? People who have seen things with their own eyes don't need to quote Scripture. Quoting Scripture suggests they got their information from Scripture, which isn't any more rational than when you do it.

Secondly, "speaking of Jesus" tells us nothing about whether the New Testament is reliable. What did they say about Jesus? What details do they validate? How so?

These are the kind of questions you have to ask when you're actually serious about historical inquiry, Kenny. I know that you just believe the Bible on faith and rationalize in details later, but that isn't how historians approach things.

No.. they were "contemporaries" validating what the "eyewitnesses" said. Hello?

Secondly, so if I quote the Constitution, I'm not reliable? Absurd to say the least. What you are basically saying is "It doesn't matter what evidence you give, I'm not giving in". Which is fine, if that is what you want.

And, since I have given evidence, "believing it by faith" doesn't qualify. :0 You want to try again?

You were so close! You're right that I don't believe extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. As a free-will spiritual agent, you have every right.

But I believe the point here isn't whether you believe or don't but rather your position that somehow your statement of "it isn't reliable" isn't reliable at all.

 

[Kenny]

Wait a minute, so your religion doesn't require you to believe that the Bible is infallible? If you stood up before your congregation and said that...they'd have no issue? You don't think it's relevant to this discussion that you believe the Bible is infallibly true in every detail as a matter of dogma?

I must have missed something before this post. Maybe you can restate it and make it more clear? Because I don't know where you got this from. I'm sure it was my error in reading what you posted.

 

[Left Coast]

???

And just what do you think they talked about? The year 2023 and the need to convince Left Coast?

I already said. You didn't read.

1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Again, Paul says he got that information from visions, not from any eyewitnesses.

I could go on but your position is absurd, to say the least.

Don't project, Kenny.

No.. they were "contemporaries" validating what the "eyewitnesses" said. Hello?

Validating how? Validating which details?

Secondly, so if I quote the Constitution, I'm not reliable? Absurd to say the least.

Think, Kenny. If you cone across somebody who believes something because their holy book says so...is that good reason to believe them? Do they have any special knowledge to validate what the book says? If they don't, they're just believing on faith.

Think, Kenny.

What you are basically saying is "It doesn't matter what evidence you give, I'm not giving in". Which is fine, if that is what you want.

No. What I am basically saying is "You are making extraordinary claims on the basis of ****ty evidence. Here's why it's obviously ****ty."

 

[Left Coast]

The Jews do not deny the miracles of Jesus.

They don't? Which Jews are you talking to?

Paul didn't add anything new. He confirmed and explained the facts that had already been established

Paul's message was very new. That was literally the whole point of his message lol.

 

[Left Coast]

I must have missed something before this post. Maybe you can restate it and make it more clear? Because I don't know where you got this from. I'm sure it was my error in reading what you posted.

You were replying to post #69.

 

[Kenny]

Again, Paul says he got that information from visions, not from any eyewitnesses.

Which he validated with those who were eyewitnesses.

Validating how? Validating which details?

Think outside of your box, please.

Think, Kenny. If you cone across somebody who believes something because their holy book says so...is that good reason to believe them? Do they have any special knowledge to validate what the book says? If they don't, they're just believing on faith.

Think, Kenny.

Isn't applicable... can you please stay focused on the issue at hand and not move the goal post? We are talking about the Bible.

No. What I am basically saying is "You are making extraordinary claims on the basis of ****ty evidence. Here's why it's obviously ****ty."

No.. IMU, you are projecting your anti-Christianity views on Christians as evidenced by your posts. Hard, empirical and verifiable evidence.

 

[Eli G]

Maybe, but no scholar rejects the NT by default , just because it was written by Christians......... they would treat the NT in the same way they would treat any other document

That is exactly the point that I brought on this topic: it is discrimination.

The NT is a collection of documents of diferent inspired men, all of them Jews ... Even the leaders of the Christian-Roman religion that arose in the third century could not add any additional writings to those already accepted in the first century to this already virtually existing and complete collection. What they did was gather those that were already circulating as inspired and put together the book. But they were documents that had been created independently.

Although modern Bible critics now want to discredit those well-known writers as well (they never stop their attacks), they are:

a) two apostles: John and Peter
b) two half-brothers of Jesus: Jude and James
c) two disciples: Luke and Mark
d) Paul

... 7 men, all by their own side ... no matter if these modern critics want to say they were kind of connected on the source of their information just to disqualify the personal testimony and made it a collective illusion. ... And of course they were connected: they knew each other; they heard about the other's writings, and they may have read them. BUT each of them wrote their own inspired book/s independently. Only Paul didn't meet the human Jesus in person, but the rest did or were close to someone who did.

To try to disqualify the NT as a book is to try to disqualify as reliable 7 independent contemporary writers, not one. They were medic, fishermen, tax collectors, etc ... diferent backgrounds. Is it realistic to try to disqualify 7 people just because they were part of the same community?

 

[Eli G]

They don't? Which Jews are you talking to?

None of them: nor contemporary Jews, nor modern Jews. Didn't you know that?
They just interpret diferently those miracles.

Paul's message was very new. That was literally the whole point of his message lol.

As I said: facts were already established. Paul didn't change anything.
Modern critics want to invent a Paul also ... I know.

 

[Kenny]

Fundamentalist Christians certainly do. Without it, your religion collapses on its face.



Of course there is. Your own daily lived experience should inform you what events are plausible or implausible. Do you walk on water often?

I think my response to that was:

#71

So I still don't know how you came to that conclusion.

So as to not have any room to doubt.

"I think that is the point. No one says you have to receive it as "reliable"."

1) I don't know of any "fundamentalist Christian" who demands that you believe. It is a free-will choice. That being said, I'm sure you will find some that meets your criteria but too broad of a brush.

I just don't see why this needed to be responded to

2) "Without it, your religion collapses on its face." - Application? If I don't believe that penicillin will heal me and don't take it, my lack of belief will collapse too. I just don't see why this even needed to be responded to

3) Yes, I did believe and my experience informs me that it is very plausible... but what in the world does that have to do with walking on water? (If you have studied the Bible you would understand)

Which is why I just didn't see why this needed to be responded to.

But, for your personal benefit, I responded anyways.

 

[leroy]

Then, what is the criterion by which the testimony of first-century Christians who wrote the NT is dismissed as true, while other testimonies of old times are considered more seriously?

I?

All you have to do is ask 2 questions

1 was the author of the in a possition to know the stuff that he was repporting ?

2 was the author trying to be honest and report what he thinks is true.?


If the answer is yes in both questions, then the document is probably a good source


When it comes to the gospels Paul and acts we would answer yes to those questions............ therefore these are good historical sources

 

[pearl]

Is it religious prejudice and discrimination?

And what about the many, many non-canonical Christian testimonies contemporaneous with the Gospels?
Apocryphal Gospels:
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek & Latin versions]
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of James
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of Matthias
The Gospel of Nicodemus [a.k.a. The Acts of Pilate]
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Thomas [Coptic Sayings Gospel]
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of the Lord [by Marcion]
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles [various versions]
The Gospel of the Nazareans
The Gospel of the Ebionites
The Gospel of the Hebrews
The Gospel of the Egyptians
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Judas

What was the criteria followed by the Church in determining the Canon?

Weird how we only supposedly hear from two out of twelve.

Most of them simply scattered post Resurrection.

 

[Eli G]

And what about the many, many non-canonical Christian testimonies contemporaneous with the Gospels? (...)

One simple answer: they were not considered reliable by the contemporaries.

Precisely, the ones who don't want to accept the reliability of the actual NT, pretend to involve into the discussion those books that the contemporaries didn't take seriously. Ironic, isn't it?